Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Space Shuttle Atlantis' Final Landing 5-26-10 (FULL NASAtelevision)
TS-132 Commander Ken Ham and his five crewmates: Pilot Tony Antonelli and Mission Specialists Garrett Reisman, Steve Bowen, Mike Good and Piers Sellers are safely back on Earth after space shuttle Atlantis glided to a picture-perfect landing at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Fla. on Wednesday morning, May 26. It was Atlantis' 32nd and final flight, traveling a total of more than 120 million miles. The 12-day, STS-132 mission delivered the Russian Mini Research Module-1, Rassvet ("dawn") to the International Space Station. (NASAtelevision) 5-26-10
STS-132 HD Flight day 11 Highlights!!
bsolutely stunning views!! -- The crew of space shuttle Atlantis awoke on flight day 11 and after a couple of hours of personal time, begun the late inspection of the shuttles wing leading edges and nose cap. The crew worked through the time line and finished the scans about two and a half hours ahead of schedule. By 5:50 a.m. EDT they had finished their look at the right wing, by 6:52 a.m. EDT the nose cap survey was complete and the left wing survey was finished at 7:17 a.m. EDT. The TPS survey was done using the shuttle arm and its OBSS extension. While the scans were going on, some of the crew was stowing items that were no longer needed or were transferred right before undocking. Spacewalkers Mike Good and Steve Bowen cleaned up and stowed their spacesuits for landing. The latter part of the crews day was spent with some off duty time.
( Yan and Justin )
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
New Looks at Atlantis Launch
Highlights of the launch of space shuttle Atlantis from NASAs Kennedy Space Center, Fla. on May 14, 2010 to begin the STS-132 mission to the International Space Station. Video includes views of the liftoff from multiple cameras in and around launch pad 39A.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Obama's Rocket
When U.S. President Barack Obama spoke to Florida space workers to reveal his plan for America’s future in space, he called for development of an “advanced” heavy-lift launch vehicle. This signaled a challenge to NASA to embrace a new paradigm for launch vehicle design, capitalizing on everything that has been learned in the previous 60 years. No more massaging of old designs. No more wishful reversions to Saturn 5 or other relic rockets. “Advanced” heavy-lifter means something new — new in design, new in manufacturing processes, new in operations.
It seems appropriate to address several issues and opportunities that are certain to shape an emerging course of events. Building a heavy-lift rocket is a serious undertaking. Engineering should be based on at least one firm mission, and reflect keen insight into the ability to perform an array of other missions, for at least the next 50 years.
A heavy-lift vehicle will allow America to do big things in space. The Apollo program demonstrated it. A heavy-lifter was needed to get humans to the Moon. However, most of America’s achievements in space were launched by rockets limited to payloads weighing less than 25,000 kilograms to low Earth orbit. Yes, we built one big thing, the international space station (ISS), but at tremendous cost and with a prolonged build schedule. Piecemeal construction of spacecraft can cost dearly.
Although there has been much discussion regarding a return to the Moon and a manned Mars journey, there has been nothing comparable to President John F. Kennedy’s solid commitment to send men to the Moon in the ’60s. A firm mission can be readily identified, and it turns out to be neither of the above. The key lies in realization that end of life for the ISS is just a few years from now. No one is proposing a replacement, and it is doubtful that another ISS will be built. If we wait until the day it is shut down without doing anything, it is certain there will be a many-year hiatus before Americans work in space again.
Fortunately, NASA already pointed the way for the future in the 1970s post-Apollo project, the Skylab orbital workshop. Though beset with loss of insulation, loss of half its power source and other problems, the mission was a resounding success for what was deemed at the time as somewhat of a shoestring operation. Astronauts occupied the station in three stays of 28, 59 and 84 days. The Skylab experience taught that modest-size, turnkey space stations are the wave of the future.
Planning should begin now to orbit the first one soon after the ISS is out of business, ensuring a seamless transition into a new way of operation in space. Turnkey stations can fulfill manifold purposes, covering research, manufacturing and even tourist hotels. This can be big business for the U.S. space industry, providing for station needs of many nations and attending to their servicing over their respective duty cycles. Turnkey stations will weigh between 75 and 100 tons. This defines the primary mission for a heavy lifter and establishes its size.
In light of current international concerns regarding climate change and degradation of the environment due to human activity, NASA and the Department of Defense (DoD) should be in the forefront of converting their energy consumers to green sources. DoD is already taking steps in this direction, experimenting with and promoting the use of biofuels for powering aircraft.
In rocketry, perchlorates, long used in solid rocket motors and resulting in disposal of the chemical during processing, have entered ground water and are widely dispersed, impossible to reverse. Perchlorates are suspected carcinogens, although human susceptibility is as yet undetermined. But arguments for continued proliferation of the chemical are weak, considering that clean-burning, better-performing propellants are available. Future designs by NASA should ban the use of such chemicals. NASA’s tentative plan for heavy-lifters involves development of a million-pound-thrust, kerosene-fueled engine. This foretells the transfer of huge tonnages of carbon dioxide to the upper atmosphere. Except for violent volcanoes, there are no natural processes that do this. It is not known whether it will be harmful, but it must be considered a consequential event and avoided if possible. There is an alternative — hydrogen-fueled engines, which release only water.
For a future heavy-lifter, fueled by liquid hydrogen, the cost of development of a rocket engine would be virtually eliminated. Suitable engines, new by any measure, are already available in the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne RS-68 and RS-68A. The RS-68 has been employed on only a few flights on the Delta rocket. The RS-68A, a better performer, is far along in development. Rather than undertake development of a new high-thrust engine, work should continue on succeeding generations of this engine, following the excellent progression that has taken place with the hydrogen-fueled RL10 engine over many years.
It will be difficult to achieve meaningful cost savings with clustered, multistage designs. There is little about such configurations that can be considered “advanced,” should NASA insist on following this approach. The new paradigm should act on the realization that multiple stages involve multiple management structures, multiple industrial entities, multiple support services, etc. Each can do some things to reduce cost, but the composite result will be disappointing. The new paradigm calls for doing heavy lift with a large single-stage-to-orbit rocket.
A hydrogen-fueled heavy-lifter is big, ranging in diameter from 18 to 27 meters. Building it is straightforward. All technology needed is available. It is strictly an engineering and manufacturing task to bring it to fruition. Its sheer size should faze no one. Hundreds of tanks for containing methane on liquid natural gas ships, 36 meters in diameter, have been built and are being built.
Its size, however, removes any thought of building it in a factory and shipping it to a launch site, as is the current practice. The new paradigm calls for locating the factory at the launch site, and shipping only materials, components and subsystems to the factory.
This is not a frightening concept. At some levels it has already been done. For example, during the 1980s, the launch crew at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California accomplished all design modifications on the Atlas E and F ICBMs to ready them for flight, and then launched them. Manufacture of parts elsewhere would alleviate any geopolitical concerns about concentrating a high-dollar effort in one area of the country.
Modest-size payloads will continue to be launched far into the future. The Obama administration is taking the correct position in deciding to allow what is now a mature industry to compete for the spacecraft launch business, open to established companies and newcomers alike. Within this mandate should appear a modest-size returnable passenger vehicle. A return to X-33, on which over a billion dollars has been spent, with more practical engineering, is one idea. Powered by a row of advanced RL10 engines, this could be a long-term, useful system. Here is where NASA’s proposed million-pound-thrust, kerosene-fueled engine, if throttleable, could be applied — a recoverable stub booster for X-33.
The compelling challenges ahead in space exploration and exploitation are what NASA should be about. Obama’s rocket will usher in a new era in space exploration. It will launch payloads at one-twentieth of the cost per pound as the space shuttle. With a firm mission, orbiting turnkey space stations like Skylab, America will have launch capability for undertaking other missions, such as manned journeys to the Moon, robust robotic exploration of Mars, manned journeys to Mars, aggressive solar system exploration, and advanced work on solar power stations for beaming electrical power to Earth.
Edward Hujsak is a career rocket engineer and the author of two books on rockets, “The Future of U.S. Rocketry” and “All About Rocket Engines.”
Space News
It seems appropriate to address several issues and opportunities that are certain to shape an emerging course of events. Building a heavy-lift rocket is a serious undertaking. Engineering should be based on at least one firm mission, and reflect keen insight into the ability to perform an array of other missions, for at least the next 50 years.
A heavy-lift vehicle will allow America to do big things in space. The Apollo program demonstrated it. A heavy-lifter was needed to get humans to the Moon. However, most of America’s achievements in space were launched by rockets limited to payloads weighing less than 25,000 kilograms to low Earth orbit. Yes, we built one big thing, the international space station (ISS), but at tremendous cost and with a prolonged build schedule. Piecemeal construction of spacecraft can cost dearly.
Although there has been much discussion regarding a return to the Moon and a manned Mars journey, there has been nothing comparable to President John F. Kennedy’s solid commitment to send men to the Moon in the ’60s. A firm mission can be readily identified, and it turns out to be neither of the above. The key lies in realization that end of life for the ISS is just a few years from now. No one is proposing a replacement, and it is doubtful that another ISS will be built. If we wait until the day it is shut down without doing anything, it is certain there will be a many-year hiatus before Americans work in space again.
Fortunately, NASA already pointed the way for the future in the 1970s post-Apollo project, the Skylab orbital workshop. Though beset with loss of insulation, loss of half its power source and other problems, the mission was a resounding success for what was deemed at the time as somewhat of a shoestring operation. Astronauts occupied the station in three stays of 28, 59 and 84 days. The Skylab experience taught that modest-size, turnkey space stations are the wave of the future.
Planning should begin now to orbit the first one soon after the ISS is out of business, ensuring a seamless transition into a new way of operation in space. Turnkey stations can fulfill manifold purposes, covering research, manufacturing and even tourist hotels. This can be big business for the U.S. space industry, providing for station needs of many nations and attending to their servicing over their respective duty cycles. Turnkey stations will weigh between 75 and 100 tons. This defines the primary mission for a heavy lifter and establishes its size.
In light of current international concerns regarding climate change and degradation of the environment due to human activity, NASA and the Department of Defense (DoD) should be in the forefront of converting their energy consumers to green sources. DoD is already taking steps in this direction, experimenting with and promoting the use of biofuels for powering aircraft.
In rocketry, perchlorates, long used in solid rocket motors and resulting in disposal of the chemical during processing, have entered ground water and are widely dispersed, impossible to reverse. Perchlorates are suspected carcinogens, although human susceptibility is as yet undetermined. But arguments for continued proliferation of the chemical are weak, considering that clean-burning, better-performing propellants are available. Future designs by NASA should ban the use of such chemicals. NASA’s tentative plan for heavy-lifters involves development of a million-pound-thrust, kerosene-fueled engine. This foretells the transfer of huge tonnages of carbon dioxide to the upper atmosphere. Except for violent volcanoes, there are no natural processes that do this. It is not known whether it will be harmful, but it must be considered a consequential event and avoided if possible. There is an alternative — hydrogen-fueled engines, which release only water.
For a future heavy-lifter, fueled by liquid hydrogen, the cost of development of a rocket engine would be virtually eliminated. Suitable engines, new by any measure, are already available in the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne RS-68 and RS-68A. The RS-68 has been employed on only a few flights on the Delta rocket. The RS-68A, a better performer, is far along in development. Rather than undertake development of a new high-thrust engine, work should continue on succeeding generations of this engine, following the excellent progression that has taken place with the hydrogen-fueled RL10 engine over many years.
It will be difficult to achieve meaningful cost savings with clustered, multistage designs. There is little about such configurations that can be considered “advanced,” should NASA insist on following this approach. The new paradigm should act on the realization that multiple stages involve multiple management structures, multiple industrial entities, multiple support services, etc. Each can do some things to reduce cost, but the composite result will be disappointing. The new paradigm calls for doing heavy lift with a large single-stage-to-orbit rocket.
A hydrogen-fueled heavy-lifter is big, ranging in diameter from 18 to 27 meters. Building it is straightforward. All technology needed is available. It is strictly an engineering and manufacturing task to bring it to fruition. Its sheer size should faze no one. Hundreds of tanks for containing methane on liquid natural gas ships, 36 meters in diameter, have been built and are being built.
Its size, however, removes any thought of building it in a factory and shipping it to a launch site, as is the current practice. The new paradigm calls for locating the factory at the launch site, and shipping only materials, components and subsystems to the factory.
This is not a frightening concept. At some levels it has already been done. For example, during the 1980s, the launch crew at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California accomplished all design modifications on the Atlas E and F ICBMs to ready them for flight, and then launched them. Manufacture of parts elsewhere would alleviate any geopolitical concerns about concentrating a high-dollar effort in one area of the country.
Modest-size payloads will continue to be launched far into the future. The Obama administration is taking the correct position in deciding to allow what is now a mature industry to compete for the spacecraft launch business, open to established companies and newcomers alike. Within this mandate should appear a modest-size returnable passenger vehicle. A return to X-33, on which over a billion dollars has been spent, with more practical engineering, is one idea. Powered by a row of advanced RL10 engines, this could be a long-term, useful system. Here is where NASA’s proposed million-pound-thrust, kerosene-fueled engine, if throttleable, could be applied — a recoverable stub booster for X-33.
The compelling challenges ahead in space exploration and exploitation are what NASA should be about. Obama’s rocket will usher in a new era in space exploration. It will launch payloads at one-twentieth of the cost per pound as the space shuttle. With a firm mission, orbiting turnkey space stations like Skylab, America will have launch capability for undertaking other missions, such as manned journeys to the Moon, robust robotic exploration of Mars, manned journeys to Mars, aggressive solar system exploration, and advanced work on solar power stations for beaming electrical power to Earth.
Edward Hujsak is a career rocket engineer and the author of two books on rockets, “The Future of U.S. Rocketry” and “All About Rocket Engines.”
Space News
Sunday, May 23, 2010
STS-132 Atlantis HD Flight Day 9 Highlights!
Atlantis' crew woke at 12:50 a.m. EDT, to "These are the Days by 10,000 Maniacs. It was played for Pilot Tony Antonelli, who will control Atlantis as it flies around the International Space Station after undocking. Earlier in the mission, he choreographed the activities and coordinated communications between the spacewalkers and Mission Control in Houston during the mission's three spacewalks.
At 6:25 a.m., all 12 crew members aboard Atlantis and the space station will hold a news conference with media representatives. Reporters will ask questions in person from NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston and from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. A portion of the news conference will be set aside for Japanese reporters.
( Yan and Justin )
STS-132 Atlantis HD Flight Day 8 Highlights!!
This morning, Piers Sellers and Garrett Reisman operated the station's robotic arm to return the cargo pallet to the shuttle's payload bay. The integrated cargo carrier brought up the six new batteries astronauts installed during two spacewalks on Wednesday and Friday. The old batteries were placed on the pallet for return to Earth. At 5:50 a.m. EDT, the carrier was stowed in the space shuttle, completing space station robotic operations for the remainder of Atlantis' mission.
From 7:40 to 8 a.m., shuttle and International Space Station astronauts will answer elementary and middle school students' questions from orbit. Students from 12 NASA Explorer Schools submitted their questions earlier by video. Space shuttle Commander Ken Ham, Pilot Tony Antonelli, Mission Specialists Garret Reisman, Michael Good, Steve Bowen, Piers Sellers, and Expedition 23 Flight Engineer Tracy Caldwell Dyson will give answers live on NASA Television.
( Yan and Justin )
Saturday, May 22, 2010
ATK Employees Interviewed on CNN
CNN's John Zarrella reports on the people who will be affected by the end of the space shuttle program. Watch this segment, which aired April 14 on the Wolf Blitzer show. The full segment will air this fall.
Friday, May 21, 2010
STS-132 Atlantis HD Flight Day 6 Highlights!
After almost 25 years and more than 115 million miles, space shuttle Atlantis is down to just one final mission but it will be going out on a high note.
STS-132 will deliver to the International Space Station the Russian Rassvet Mini-Research Module-1, only the second Russian module to ever be carried into space by a space shuttle. Its a fitting final payload for the orbiter that not only launched the first into space, but also was the first shuttle to dock to the Russian Space Station Mir in fact, Atlantis was the shuttle behind seven of the 11 shuttle missions to Mir.
"Atlantis has a history of being the shuttle that did the most international things," said Emily Nelson, lead space station flight director for the mission. "Its the orbiter that the Russians have known best, because its one that came to their space station most often, and its one that we used to deliver a module for them in the past."
Whether or not they recognize it by name, many people are likely familiar with Atlantis work. Besides the visits to Mir, Atlantis carried the Magellan Spacecraft into orbit, sending it on its way to Venus, where it mapped 98 percent of the planet from orbit. The same year 1989 it also deployed the Galileo Spacecraft to Jupiter, where it collected data on the planet and its moons for eight years.
Closer to home, Atlantis has visited the International Space Station 10 times STS-132 will be its 11th trip delivering among other pieces of hardware, the United States Destiny Laboratory and Europes Columbus. And just last year it made the final flight to the Hubble Space Telescope, bringing upgrades that should allow the telescope to see further into the universe than ever for years to come.
"Atlantis has clearly been a work horse of the space shuttle fleet over the years," said Mike Sarafin, lead STS-132 shuttle flight director. "The shuttle program history is pretty complicated, but I think it will show that Atlantis is a remarkable vehicle."
But Atlantis is not finished making history just yet there are still a few firsts in store.
For instance, the installation of Rassvet. Normally when a new piece of the space station is installed, all the work is done (the hooks are engaged and the latches latched to attach the new module to the rest of the station) from the space station side of the equation. Thats true for all of the international partners involved in the station except for Russia. Until now, the Russian modules have all been launched into space on their own, not carried up by a space shuttle, and the Russian system makes use of that by relying on the momentum of the new module as it approaches to force the latches.
That wont be possible this time around. Instead, the STS-132 crew will use the space stations robotic arm to attach it. The arm will be extended to just about its full 58 feet to reach Rassvets home on the Zarya module, which will make it difficult to push with much force. In addition, the commands to the module to work those latches and hooks will have to take a long circuitous route from the robotic arm controls inside the Cupola, through the United States segment of the station to the Russian segment, then back to the United States segment and out through the robotic arm to the Rassvet.
"Installing that module is going to be an interesting day," STS-132 Commander Ken Ham said. "If anything goes wrong in this delicate plan, we have to get it to work right. We think, based on the analyses, that were going to be just fine. However, were prepared for all sorts of problems that could arise getting that thing in there."
If the team is lucky, some of Atlantis good luck will rub off on the module while its in the shuttles cargo bay, and the installation will go off without a hitch Atlantis tends to be the member of the shuttle fleet with the fewest problems in flight, so it wouldnt be out of character.
"Like any home or any car that youve had over the years, the shuttles have their nuances," Sarafin said. "Atlantis tends to behave very well when its flying. Thats a nice luxury to have."
( Yan and Justin )
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
STS-132 Atlantis HD Flight Day 5 Highlights!!
Thursdays activities include the initial hatch opening of the Mini Research Module-1, named Rassvet. Crew members will put in a filter to cleanse the air.
Atlantis crew members Commander Ken Ham, Pilot Tony Antonelli, Mission Specialist Piers Sellers and International Space Station Expedition 23 Flight Engineer Tracy Caldwell Dyson will participate in an interview with the Associated Press, Fox News Radio and CBS.
The crew then will have the remainder of the day off, until Mission Specialists Michael Good and Garrett Reisman begin preparations for the mission's final spacewalk.
Space shuttle Atlantis astronauts Steve Bowen and Michael Good changed out four of the six 375-pound batteries on the International Space Stations port 6 truss during a 7-hour, 9-minute spacewalk Wednesday, getting a leg up on a major mission priority.
Plans called for three of the batteries to be replaced Wednesday, and mission managers hoped the fourth could be changed out. Remaining batteries are to be swapped during a Friday spacewalk by Good and Garrett Reisman.
The spacewalk, the fifth for Bowen and the third for Good, got under way at 6:38 a.m. EDT, more than 25 minutes ahead of the scheduled start that already had been moved up 30 minutes. One reason for the early scheduled start was the addition of a task to remove a cable snag in the orbiter boom sensor systems pan and tilt mechanism. Bowen accomplished that task in less than 30 minutes, while Good began work with the batteries.
After the battery work and cleanup of the area, the spacewalkers moved on to the new backup Ku band antenna on the Z1 truss. They tightened bolts holding its dish to its boom, closing a gap left there after Mondays spacewalk. They removed launch latches, leaving the antenna ready to operate.
The spacewalk officially ended at 1:47 p.m., when Quest repressurization began.
STS-132
(132nd space shuttle flight)
Launch Window:
10 minutes
Launch Pad:
39A
Mission Duration:
12 days
Landing Site:
KSC
Inclination/Altitude:
51.6 degrees/122 nautical miles
Primary Payload:
34th station flight (ULF4), Integrated Cargo Carrier (ICC), Mini Research Module (MRM1)
( Yan and Justin )
Monday, May 17, 2010
No Time To Retire Shuttle
The United States will retire the space shuttle, the most robust and capable space vehicle the world has ever seen, simply because our government has decided to do that. We have no vehicle to replace the space shuttle, and we will have no replacement for an unspecified amount of time.
This is an enormous strategic mistake that requires serious reconsideration from all levels of government. Anything less will result in the U.S. surrendering its leadership role in human spaceflight for the foreseeable future. Unique, valuable skills, experience and knowledge will be lost as the work force has no other choice but to disperse.
Ironically, the international space station, our $100 billion investment a quarter of a century in the making, is just nearing completion, and President Barack Obama is proposing to extend its mission until at least 2020. With the impending cancellation of the space shuttle program, there is little foresight and even less of a concrete plan on how we can fully utilize the space station to ensure it becomes everything that it can be and was promised to be. The fact is the space station was designed and always intended to be supported by the space shuttle in addition to unmanned cargo vehicles supplied by Russia, Europe and Japan. These cargo vehicles cannot completely replace the unique capabilities of the space shuttle and were always intended to act as a supplement.
With the shuttle gone, the United States will be reliant on a foreign power, Russia, and its Soyuz spacecraft for an unspecified amount of time to transport astronauts to the space station, so heavily funded by the American people. For this service, Russia will be charging the United States approximately $50 million per seat. Per the space station agreement with our international partners, the United States transports European, Japanese and Canadian astronauts to the station on the space shuttle, since they have no crew capability of their own. Of course retirement of the shuttle does not nullify that agreement, and the American taxpayer will now also be paying Russia for the transport of our European, Japanese and Canadian partners as well.
Compounding this problem is the fact Russia has signaled the price per seat will likely continue to increase as time goes forward. The United States will have no choice but to pay whatever Russia decides to charge, because, after all, we will have given Russia a monopoly and with that surrendered a part of our national sovereignty.
There has been much discussion and debate about commercial providers’ taking over the role that the space shuttle was always intended to perform. This is a worthy goal that I support for many reasons, but these vehicles do not exist and are not operational today. However, if the United States allows the international space station to degrade or not realize its full potential, the business case for these commercial providers degrades as well. An extension of the space shuttle program prevents this. Once commercial providers are operational and have verified their performance, that would be — and should be — the trigger for space shuttle retirement.
If we turn our back on spaceflight without any near- or long-term plan and outsource our immediate needs to other nations, it will be a sad day for the United States — perhaps an indicator that this great nation truly is in decline. I understand the economic climate in which we live today. However, we must look at this as an investment, one that costs this nation approximately one-half of 1 percent of the federal budget for all of NASA yet returns so much to the economy as a whole. The space shuttle program is a fraction of that amount and can be made even more economically efficient while still protecting the safety of our astronauts. In a time when there is so much uncertainty about jobs and the role of the United States in the world, this is a small price to maintain American leadership at the space station and in spaceflight.
This is an enormous strategic mistake that requires serious reconsideration from all levels of government. Anything less will result in the U.S. surrendering its leadership role in human spaceflight for the foreseeable future. Unique, valuable skills, experience and knowledge will be lost as the work force has no other choice but to disperse.
Ironically, the international space station, our $100 billion investment a quarter of a century in the making, is just nearing completion, and President Barack Obama is proposing to extend its mission until at least 2020. With the impending cancellation of the space shuttle program, there is little foresight and even less of a concrete plan on how we can fully utilize the space station to ensure it becomes everything that it can be and was promised to be. The fact is the space station was designed and always intended to be supported by the space shuttle in addition to unmanned cargo vehicles supplied by Russia, Europe and Japan. These cargo vehicles cannot completely replace the unique capabilities of the space shuttle and were always intended to act as a supplement.
With the shuttle gone, the United States will be reliant on a foreign power, Russia, and its Soyuz spacecraft for an unspecified amount of time to transport astronauts to the space station, so heavily funded by the American people. For this service, Russia will be charging the United States approximately $50 million per seat. Per the space station agreement with our international partners, the United States transports European, Japanese and Canadian astronauts to the station on the space shuttle, since they have no crew capability of their own. Of course retirement of the shuttle does not nullify that agreement, and the American taxpayer will now also be paying Russia for the transport of our European, Japanese and Canadian partners as well.
Compounding this problem is the fact Russia has signaled the price per seat will likely continue to increase as time goes forward. The United States will have no choice but to pay whatever Russia decides to charge, because, after all, we will have given Russia a monopoly and with that surrendered a part of our national sovereignty.
There has been much discussion and debate about commercial providers’ taking over the role that the space shuttle was always intended to perform. This is a worthy goal that I support for many reasons, but these vehicles do not exist and are not operational today. However, if the United States allows the international space station to degrade or not realize its full potential, the business case for these commercial providers degrades as well. An extension of the space shuttle program prevents this. Once commercial providers are operational and have verified their performance, that would be — and should be — the trigger for space shuttle retirement.
If we turn our back on spaceflight without any near- or long-term plan and outsource our immediate needs to other nations, it will be a sad day for the United States — perhaps an indicator that this great nation truly is in decline. I understand the economic climate in which we live today. However, we must look at this as an investment, one that costs this nation approximately one-half of 1 percent of the federal budget for all of NASA yet returns so much to the economy as a whole. The space shuttle program is a fraction of that amount and can be made even more economically efficient while still protecting the safety of our astronauts. In a time when there is so much uncertainty about jobs and the role of the United States in the world, this is a small price to maintain American leadership at the space station and in spaceflight.
Mike Snyder - Aerospace Engineer on the Space Shuttle Program in Houston
Monday, May 10, 2010
Final Flight Space Shuttle Atlantis
The shuttle Atlantis is poised for its final scheduled mission – the delivery of a compact Russian docking and laboratory module to the International Space station.
Liftoff from Kennedy Space Center is set for May 14 at 2:20pm EDT initiating a 12-day flight.
The spacecraft’s six-man crew has trained to deliver Rassvet or “Dawn”, a 23-ft.-long compartment that will open a fourth docking port on the orbiting lab for the Russian Soyuz and Progress capsules that will continue to come and go long after Atlantis, then orbiters Discovery and finally Endeavor, complete their final flights by year-end.
Liftoff from Kennedy Space Center is set for May 14 at 2:20pm EDT initiating a 12-day flight.
The spacecraft’s six-man crew has trained to deliver Rassvet or “Dawn”, a 23-ft.-long compartment that will open a fourth docking port on the orbiting lab for the Russian Soyuz and Progress capsules that will continue to come and go long after Atlantis, then orbiters Discovery and finally Endeavor, complete their final flights by year-end.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Last Shuttle Flights
The last space shuttle flights have been rescheduled. If you are one of the thousands of space fans planning to view one of these final flights, take note! STS-133 has been postponed from September 16 to November 1, 2010 with a liftoff planned for 4:33 PM EDT.
What may be the final flight of a space shuttle, has been postponed until February 26, 2011, with liftoff at 4:19 PM. This flight of Endeavour is the last flight currently planned and funded.
Some members of Congress are pushing for at least one more flight after that: of Space Shuttle Atlantis in the June timeframe. Atlantis is being kept on standby in case one of the other flights has significant tile or other damage, requiring the crew to be rescued. Two Soyuz are docked at the station, each capable of returning 3 crewmembers. But those are needed to evacuate the resident crew of the station in the event of an emergency (such as a debris strike or fire), so are not available to return a stranded shuttle crew.
If Atlantis is not needed for a rescue, but is ready to fly, members of Congress have suggested that it be used to take up more spares and supplies before mothballing it for a museum. A decision from Congress is expected by the end of the summer.
The STS-133 flight of Discovery was delayed to allow more time to prepare spares that will be taken aloft inside a multi-purpose carrier: including a pump package, a heat exchanger, and "Robonaut," a robotic human-shaped upper torso that may eventually be used in a spacewalk support role.
Steve Lindsey will command the crew for STS-133. The pilot is Eric Boe. The crew includes two spacewalkers: Alvin Drew and Timothy Kopra, and Mission Specialists Michael Barratt and Nicole Stott. If STS-134 is indeed the last shuttle flight, because it has an all-male crew, Nicole Stott (onthis flight) will be the last woman to fly on a space shuttle.
STS-134 was originally planend for this month, and STS-133 would have been the final flight before shuttle retirement. But the payload, the Alpha Magnetic Sectrometer, was not ready. A late-November or December launch were not an option because of conflicts with other launches and also temperature constraints caused by the high sun angle that time of year.
Those of us planning to view or otherwise commemorate the final shuttle flight, will just have to stay flexible!
What may be the final flight of a space shuttle, has been postponed until February 26, 2011, with liftoff at 4:19 PM. This flight of Endeavour is the last flight currently planned and funded.
Some members of Congress are pushing for at least one more flight after that: of Space Shuttle Atlantis in the June timeframe. Atlantis is being kept on standby in case one of the other flights has significant tile or other damage, requiring the crew to be rescued. Two Soyuz are docked at the station, each capable of returning 3 crewmembers. But those are needed to evacuate the resident crew of the station in the event of an emergency (such as a debris strike or fire), so are not available to return a stranded shuttle crew.
If Atlantis is not needed for a rescue, but is ready to fly, members of Congress have suggested that it be used to take up more spares and supplies before mothballing it for a museum. A decision from Congress is expected by the end of the summer.
The STS-133 flight of Discovery was delayed to allow more time to prepare spares that will be taken aloft inside a multi-purpose carrier: including a pump package, a heat exchanger, and "Robonaut," a robotic human-shaped upper torso that may eventually be used in a spacewalk support role.
Steve Lindsey will command the crew for STS-133. The pilot is Eric Boe. The crew includes two spacewalkers: Alvin Drew and Timothy Kopra, and Mission Specialists Michael Barratt and Nicole Stott. If STS-134 is indeed the last shuttle flight, because it has an all-male crew, Nicole Stott (onthis flight) will be the last woman to fly on a space shuttle.
STS-134 was originally planend for this month, and STS-133 would have been the final flight before shuttle retirement. But the payload, the Alpha Magnetic Sectrometer, was not ready. A late-November or December launch were not an option because of conflicts with other launches and also temperature constraints caused by the high sun angle that time of year.
Those of us planning to view or otherwise commemorate the final shuttle flight, will just have to stay flexible!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
